MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant is first application for grant of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. He is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.653 of 2020 registered with Out Post CSEB, Police Station City Kotwali, District Korba for offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Applicant Mohan Singh is the Director of a firm Mahalaxmi Associates and Complainant Deepak Agrawal is the Director of a firm Sarvamangla Infrabuild Private Limited. In the year 2016-2017, Applicant's firm Mahalaxmi Associates was to receive a contract from Hindustan Zinc Limited, Rajasthan for execution of a civil work amounting to Rs.33,82,00,000/-. At that time, the Applicant approached the Complainant and offered him a partnership in execution of the said work which was to be allotted to the Applicant's firm by Hindustan Zinc Limited. The Applicant gave assurance to the Complainant that in execution of the said work, the Complainant would be a partner of 50% in profit. The Applicant made a proposal that the value of the work is Rs.33,33,00,000/- and the profit will be shared equally. Based on the offer of the Applicant, the Complainant gave bank guarantee of Rs.80,00,000/- in the name of his firm. At that time, on being asked by the Applicant, for the said work, the Complainant gave 2 JCB machines on rent @ Rs.85,000/- per JCB machine per month for execution of the said work. During the period of execution of the said work, on being asked by the Applicant, the Complainant gave a total sum of Rs.57,90,000/- to the Applicant in cash and through various bank transactions on different dates. In the meanwhile, the Complainant kept on asking the Applicant to execute a partnership deed and make him a partner in the work, but the Applicant kept on avoiding execution of such deed. The Applicant told the Complainant that after completion of the work, he will refund him whole of his amount along with his share in the profit. After completion of the work, when the Complainant made demand for refund of his amount invested, his share of profit and the amount of rent for the JCB machines supplied, the Applicant gave him only the rent of Rs.41,96,976/- for the JCB machines and told him that he will give his remaining amount later. Thus, the Applicant kept the payment of the Complainant pending. A total sum of Rs.1,12,41,088/- including interest is due to be paid by the Applicant to the Complainant. On 4.6.2020, the Complainant visited the office of the Applicant and made demand for the sum of Rs.1,12,41,088/-. The Applicant assured the Complainant that he will give him his amount without 4 days, but he did not give him the said amount within the said period. Thereafter, on 24.6.2020, the Complainant again visited the office of the Applicant and made demand for his money, but the Applicant refused to make him payment of the due amount. Thereafter, the Complainant made a report against the Applicant on the basis of which First Information Report has been registered against the Applicant on 28.7.2020.

(3.) Shri Rajkamal Singh, Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The matter is purely of civil nature and it pertains to a civil dispute between the two firms of the Applicant and the Complainant arising out of an understanding to work jointly on 50- 50% partnership in joint venture in relation to execution of the work valued at Rs.33,83,00,000/- awarded by Hindustan Zinc Limited. The Complainant initially invested a sum of Rs.9,90,000/- through his firm Sarvamangla Infrabuild Private Limited and also invested a further sum of Rs.59,90,000/- through M/s M.K. Gupta, a sister concern/an associate firm of Sarvamangla Infrabuild Private Limited. Out of the sum of Rs.59,90,000/-, an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was taken back by M/s M.K. Gupta in the year of investment itself. The Complainant's firm Sarvamangla Infrabuild Private Limited had also appointed a supervisor in relation to execution of the aforesaid work for whose salary a total amount of Rs.11,12,434/- has been paid by the Applicant's firm. Till date, Applicant's firm Mahalaxmi Associates has made payment of total Rs.53,09,410/- to the Complainant and his associate firms. Finalisation of accounts of Hindustan Zinc Limited and Applicant's firm Mahalaxmi Associates is still due and final bill of the Applicant is yet to be paid by Hindustan Zinc Limited. Referring to various emails of the Applicant's firm Mahalaxmi Associates addressed to Hindustan Zinc Limited, it was further submitted that total bill of Rs.2,48,11,554/- of the Applicant is still pending before Hindustan Zinc Limited. Since this payment of the Applicant has not yet been released by Hindustan Zinc Limited, final payment of the Complainant is pending. It was further submitted that the Complainant started disputing the arrangements in the year 2018 only and he also wrote a letter to Hindustan Zinc Limited on 17.9.2018 for release of his bank guarantee. Thereafter, the Complainant called back his JCB machines also. The bank guarantee given by the Complainant expired on 14.6.2019 and the aforesaid work also got completed in the year 2019 itself. Because of the vendor dispute, final bill has not been released by Hindustan Zinc Limited and, therefore, payment of the Complainant is pending. The dispute between both the firms is of civil nature and can be resolved by a Civil Court. Their dispute can be of breach of an oral agreement only not a breach of trust. The Complainant has made investment in the work and that is not an entrustment and, therefore also, no offence of criminal breach of trust is made out. As regards the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it was submitted by the Learned Counsel that there is no deceit given by the Applicant nor is any dishonest inducement on his part. Therefore, the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. The Applicant never refused partnership of sharing of 50% in the profit. Since the work has already been completed, execution of a partnership deed is immaterial. Final bill is still pending before Hindustan Zinc Limited and, therefore, payment of the Complainant is also pending. There is no criminal intent on the part of the Applicant and, therefore, no criminal case is made out. Hence, it was prayed that the Applicant may be admitted to benefit of anticipatory bail.